Orders based on admissions

Asplundh Canada Inc v Rousseau, 2012 SKCA 40 deals with judgments on admissions.  In Saskatchewan the Rule provides:

 

The Queen’s Bench Rules

Judgment on admissions

247   Any part may, at any stage of a cause or matter where admissions of fact have been made, either on the pleadings, or otherwise, apply to the court for such judgment or order as upon such admissions he may be entitled to, without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties; and the court may, upon such application, make such order, or give such judgment as the court may think just.

 

 

The Ontario Rule is:

 

ORDER BASED ON ADMISSION OF FACT OR DOCUMENT

Motion

51.06  (1)  Where an admission of the truth of a fact or the authenticity of a document is made,

(a) in an affidavit filed by a party;

(b) in the examination for discovery of a party or a person examined for discovery on behalf of a party; or

(c) by a party on any other examination under oath or affirmation in or out of court,

any party may make a motion to a judge in the same or another proceeding for such order as the party may be entitled to on the admission without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, and the judge may make such order as is just. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 51.06 (1).

(2)  Where an admission of the truth of a fact or the authenticity of a document is made by a party in a pleading or is made or deemed to be made by a party in response to a request to admit, any party may make a motion in the same proceeding to a judge for such order as the party may be entitled to on the admission without waiting for the determination of any question between the parties, and the judge may make such order as is just. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 51.06 (2).

Although differing in language the Rules are similar enough to make the decision of interest in Ontario.  The Court holds:

 

[17]  Justice Batten (as she then was) in Plainsman Developments Ltd. v. Builders Contract Management Ltd. and Sabrice Ltd.(1982), 20 Sask.R. 298 (Q.B.) reviewed and reiterated the parameters of the exercise of this discretion outlined in the earlier cases at paras. 2 and 4:

       A court under the provisions of this rule will not allow final judgment to be signed unless the admissions are clear and unequivocal; nor will judgment be allowed to be signed where there is any serious question of law to be argued; Canadian Bank of Commerce v. Harvey (1913-14), 7 S.L.R. 295.

. . .

       To succeed on this application, the applicant must show that there is a clear admission on the face of which it is impossible for the defendants to succeed. ...   

 

[18]  In my view, the operation of Rule 247 is such that the right to trial on a viva voce basis should not be taken away unless the admission relied on is so clear and unequivocal that it would be impossible for the opposing party to succeed.